Saturday, 21 May 2016

A sermon at the start of Oxfordshire ArtWeeks

St Matthew's, 8th May 2016

This sermon was initially intended as a contribution to
‘Oxfordshire ArtWeeks’ which began yesterday and lasts until the 30th
May. St Matthew’s normally holds an exhibition during ArtWeeks but isn’t doing
so this year. St Luke’s however is
putting on an exhibition and so is St Elbe’s School. And the holding of ArtWeeks events throughout
the city over the next three weeks provides a good opportunity to reflect upon
art and its meaning for us as Christians.
I should say that I am not really qualified to talk about art at
all. I am not an artist: I am a
scientist with a bit of an interest in art, so this sermon is just my personal
take on some pictures that I like but more importantly find spiritually
nourishing. I should also say that in
this sermon I have drawn heavily on two books: How to Believe by John Cottingham and Painting the Word by John Drury.

I find the four main pictures that I am going to show you
spiritually nourishing much in the same way as I find some passages in
scripture, some liturgy, some sermons, some books, spiritually nourishing. We take it for granted that the written and
spoken word is helpful in our spiritual life.
Indeed in most services there are a lot of words of different types,
readings from the Bible, sermons about those readings, prayers, etc. And we are also used to music as being an
important part of our worship in the form of hymns and songs and sometimes
musical items without words. But art,
too, has always played some part in the Christian life if only in the form of
stained glass windows, pictures and sculpture that we find when entering our
churches

The underlying assumption behind this sermons is that art
can both challenge and console us with the good news of God’s involvement in
the world in the same way as words. And
in this sermon I want to suggest that some art which is not obviously
‘Christian’ can challenge and console us with the gospel just as much as that
art which obviously has a Christian intention behind it.

Now we feel most comfortable about bringing art into church
when it is distinctively Christian. The
most distinctively Christian art is art which in some way or other represents
the words to be found in the Bible. So
in this church we have a picture of our patron saint - St Matthew - in our one
stained-glass window over there. And
here, behind me, a copy of a picture painted by Rembrandt of an event in Jesus’
parable of the Prodigal Son [*]. And
you’ll probably all know by now that we are planning on hanging a new stained
glass cross, from the central beam of the church – a cross made by X who
worships here. It’s a cross rather than
a star or a circle, because Jesus was crucified on a cross.

Today I am only going to be taking about painting rather
than some of the other visual arts such as sculpture and architecture, and
there is a lot that might be said about this picture, but instead I’d like to
talk about this picture: [*] Antonello da Messina’s Christ Crucified as a clear example of Christian art.

I think the impact of this little panel – 17 inches by 10 –
comes from the emptiness which surrounds

the pale and exhausted body of
Jesus. It is not a completely realistic
paining of course. Even less realistic
than Rembrandt’s picture of the Prodigal Son.
Virtually all artists – when representing scenes from the Bible –
present those scenes against a background that they and their audience are
familiar with – in this case Southern Italy in around 1500. And they tend to clothe the people they are
representing in contemporary clothes.
Of course this is no mistake.
Antonello would have been aware that people in different countries and
at different times in history wear different clothes.

But Antonello’s most
obvious distortion of reality is to make the cross much taller than it probably
was and of necessity dictated. This was
a way of depicting what Jesus says of his impending death in John’s Gospel:
‘And, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself’
echoing Isiah’s prophecy: ‘See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted
and lifted up, and shall be very high’.

By raising him into the heavens painters gave Jesus’
suffering a certain transcendental monumentality but Antonello refuses the
further step, taken by so many more famous painters, of rending Christ’s body
as beautiful. Here Jesus’ arms are
emaciated, his head hangs low, and his legs taper down to the nailed feet without
any interesting curves. [*]

Antonello also resists the temptation of having Mary and
John standing on either side of the cross in attitudes of devout and wondering
pathos. Here are two people for whom it
has all been too much and too long, so they sit, slumped on the bare
ground. John has the aspect and posture
of someone who has gazed for a long time at his dying master for some sign of
grace and meaning. His raised head and
hand pose the question: why? Mary no
longer asks why: she has given up on questions.
She is just consumed by grief without hope.

From beyond
the hill three women approach [*]. They
are probably the three Marys: Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of James and Mary
the wife of Cleopas who according to Mark were looking on. But even further away there is a fortified harbour
to a town, part of which can be seen on the left [*]. The people at this port are worth looking at
for a moment. Some are out in little
boats, some congregate round the gateway to the harbour as is usual for
gateways. A mounted party is returning
to town. They are quite unconcerned
with the tragedy in the foreground. As
WH Auden says in his poem Musée des Beaux
Arts:
About suffering
they were never wrong

The Old Masters: how well they
understood

Its human position, how it takes
place

While
someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along

[*] If we look into this painting, rather than just at it,
how well we find it illustrates the events of Good Friday with their apparent
annihilation of meaning, hopes and coherences

As I said at the beginning of this sermon it is not just art
that just depicts the events recorded in the Bible that is spiritually
nourishing. Christian artists, over the
years, have explored the connection between Biblical stories and their lives as
they experience them in much the same way as preachers of sermons often end by
talking about what the passage means for the way we lead our lives today.

This is as if Antonello were to bring his background – of
people going about their everyday lives - into the foreground and to move the
biblical story into the background. And
here is a painting – by the Spanish artist Velazquez that does just that
[*]. Kitchen Scene with Christ in the House of
Martha and Mary painted in 1618.
That long-winded title is needed to cover the two related scenes
depicted. The cooking in the foreground
is apparently going on at the same time as what can be seen through the serving
hatch: a scene from the story in Luke’s Gospel where Jesus goes to stay with his
friends Mary and Martha.

This is entitled

You’ll remember that in that story Martha complains to Jesus
that her sister Mary has been sitting at Jesus feet listening to him leaving
her, Martha, to do all the household chores by herself. [*] In Velasquez’ paining we see Jesus
rebuking Martha (standing on the right) emphasised by the gesture of his raised
left hand. It fends off Martha and
protects Mary. In Luke’s gospel Jesus
is recorded as saying ‘Martha, Martha you are worried and distracted by many
things, there is a need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part
which will not be taken away from her.’
Velazquez does not need to paint these words. If we are familiar with the story we can
hear Jesus saying them. Many people
down the years have been challenged by what Jesus says here and its emphasis on
the importance of the contemplative life as opposed to the active life.

Velazquez treatment of the story is rather sketchy He hasn’t taken much care over the figures
of Jesus, Mary and Martha and you can’t really see what they are thinking. He is much more concerned about the scene in
the foreground, but what is going here is clearly related to the biblical scene
in the background [*].

Jesus’s raised hand is echoed by the raised hand of the old
woman on the left and the crooked index finger of that hand points to what is
being said in the room beyond. Speech
is implied here but what is being said?
Well we can see that the young servant girl – making a meal in just the
same way as Martha had been doing earlier – is clearly upset by what has just
been said to her. It seems clear that
the old woman has said something similar to what Jesus has just been saying to
Martha: that cooking and so forth is the lesser part – the part of life which
is least important.

In Velazquez’ time the life of a serving girl was
harsh. The choices for her in 17th
Century Spain were few. She is facing a
lifetime of Martha’s hard work in the knowledge that it is not the ‘better
part’. Velazquez is clearly sympathetic
to her plight and by taking her side in this picture seems to be on uneasy
terms with his text: ‘Mary has chosen the better part.’ Though perhaps this is not the end of the
matter. Velazquez also appears not
unsympathetic to the older woman seemingly passing on Jesus’ words to the
younger women – as if, in the end she, in her more mature years, has come to
terms with them. Here is, if you like,
a visual, rather than spoken sermon, on that text that many still find
challenging.

One further comment on this painting: the compassion in
Velazquez’ treatment of the two women in the foreground of this painting is
clear. His sympathy for the younger
women in particular is obvious and it’s as if he is saying that what primarily
matters is what this women is feeling here and now and that the scriptures,
like the Sabbath, were ‘made for man’ and not man for the scriptures. That the human and material world to which
the Bible addresses itself so continuously and urgently is as important as the
words of the text.

And in this connection we might note the sea-bass in the
bottom right of the picture [*]. Never
before had sea-bass been painted like these.
They are the fishiest of fish.
To take them in with the eye is to know exactly what they would feel and
smell like. To use a theological
expression they are almost made incarnate.

And in doing so they seem, to me, to comment on the great
mystery of The Incarnation: how could it be that the man sketchily portrayed in
the background of this painting was also God who made these fish. Art – even when it ‘merely’ depicts the
material world can speak of God as we can feel when we look at a sunset or at
the stars. Gerard Manley Hopkins says
in his poem As kingfishers catch fire:

As kingfishers catch fire,
dragonflies draw flame;

As tumbled over rim in roundy wells

Stones ring; like each tucked string
tells, each hung bell's

Bow swung finds tongue to fling out
broad its name;

Each mortal thing does one thing and
the same:

Deals out that being indoors each one
dwells;

Selves — goes itself; myself it
speaks and spells,

Crying What I do is me: for that I
came.

I say more: the just man justices;

Keeps grace: that keeps all his
goings graces;

Acts in God's eye what in God's eye
he is —

Christ — for Christ plays in ten
thousand places,

Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes
not his

To the Father through the features of
men's faces.

Now art that is explicitly Christian might seem to be a
thing of the past, but there have been painters of Biblical scenes throughout
all ages up to the present day and we might look at one of those. But instead I want to turn to two pictures
of what on the face of it might seem to have little to do with Biblical
texts. The first is a picture of a
gardener called Vallier sitting in his garden and painted by Cezanne - which
might be viewed as merely a picture of an old man unless we look at it more
carefully [*].

Gardens, of course, figure quite extensively in the Bible
even if somewhat ‘under the radar’. In
the book of Genesis human beings – in the shape of Adam and Eve - are created
to live in a garden – the Garden of Eden – and are driven out of that garden
when they disobey God by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil. And in the Gospel of John it
is specifically mentioned that the tomb where Jesus is buried is located in a
garden and that Mary, when the risen Jesus first appears to her, mistakes him
for the gardener. This is surely not
just a co-incidence.

Gardens have always, it seems, had a deeper significance
than is perhaps generally recognised.
One reason for this is that they are neither entirely natural nor
entirely under human control. They are
neither the untamed wilderness nor the carefully controlled environments of our
homes where, by virtue of walls, a roof, doors, windows and modern day devices
such as central-heating and refrigerators, we protect ourselves from the wind,
rain, cold and heat.

The garden is not just there to supply our basic needs for
food and clothes: those parts of our world are called farms. Gardens - with their paths, their pools,
their trees, flowers and fruit– are also for our delight not just our good. They are perhaps even for our spiritual
nourishment – in a similar fashion to art.
To quote the Victorian poet Dorothy Frances Gurney. ‘One is nearer God's
heart in a garden than anywhere else on earth.’

The reason for this special feature of gardens is that they
are so self-evidently (at least to Christians) a gift which evokes not just
feelings of enjoyment but also of gratitude.
We know, that however much we work we have put into our gardens:
planting, weeding and in my case strimming, the final result is not, at its
heart, down to us.

The British philosopher David Cooper – in his book A Philosophy of Gardens – points out
that the whole concept of a garden implies a kind of unity or intimate
co-dependence between human beings and the natural world. For this reason I think many painters have
been drawn to the garden as a subject for their art because art, at its best,
is also one of co-dependence - in this case co-dependence between the artist
and his or her materials and subject matter.
Perhaps the most famous garden paintings are those by Monet of his
garden at Giverny. Here is one
example. [*]

But this paining – fantastically well executed and beautiful
as it is – does not particularly illustrate the inter-dependence between the
gardener and nature. There is little
suggestion of the relationship between the garden and of the natural world
here: you cannot even see the sky.
Cezanne in his paintings of gardens frequently contrasts the garden with
the world beyond. Here is one such example:
[*] his painting of the garden of his family home Jas de Bouffan at Aix. This is the garden in winter with the trees
leafless. Beyond you can see the country
side. In this picture Cézanne seeks to
evoke the atmosphere of the garden: it’s not merely (or even particularly) the
beauty of the garden that he is seeking to portray.

In one of Cezanne’s last pictures, that of his garden at Les
Lauves [*] – the garden in which his gardener Valiier worked - the garden has
been reduced to a strip of green in the foreground, a wall, some countryside in
the background and the sky as if to investigate the concept of a garden and not
merely to portray a particular one.

But Cezanne’s picture of Vallier best illustrates the deeper
significance of gardens and gardening.
Here the gardener sits in the garden by a wall in summer in the shade of
a tree. He is clearly at one with his
garden as he seems to merge with it.
Here is the philosopher Martin Heidegger’s poem about this painting:

The
thoughtfully serene, the urgent

stillness of
the form of the old gardener,

Vallier, who
tends the inconspicuous on the Chemin des
Lauves,

In the late
work of the painter the twofoldness

of what is
present and is presence has become

one,
‘realised’ and overcome at the same time,

transformed
into a mystery filled identity

Heidegger’s point is the rather simple one but important
nevertheless that there is a fundamental rightness and therefore serenity in
the gardener caring for living things in response to their needs and
demands. Putting it this ways already
implies a spiritual dimension to gardening if only because virtues such as
discipline, humility and hope are needed to bring that co-dependence between
the gardener and his or her garden to fruition in flower and harvest. That makes it appropriate to call gardening
a kind of spiritual activity and by extension many another activity which we
call work.

Neither Cooper nor Heidegger and possibly not even Cezanne
would see this co-dependence between human life and the natural world –
epitomised by the garden - as also necessitating a co-dependence between humans
and God but we Christians might.

The final picture I want to look as a painting entitled View of Osterbro from Dosseringen by the
nineteenth century Danish artist Christen Kobke. Its subject matter has seemingly even less
relation to Christian symbolism than pictures of gardeners and gardens. And although lakes and boats do feature quite
a lot in the Biblical stories I think it would be stretching it to argue that
Kobke has those lakes and boats consciously in mind.

A calm sense of the benignity of the world is captured in
this painting. It depicts a weekend
outing of an ordinary family as they relax on their small sailing dingy moored
near Copenhagen. The mood of the
painting is finely evoked by the Alain de Boton and John Armstrong in their
book Art as Therapy:

The light in the picture is
tremendously meaningful, even though it is difficult to say what the meaning
is. One wants to point at the picture
and say ‘When the light is like this, I feel like that.’ Kobke has created an
image that is in love with nothing happening. The child hangs over the rails,
the man in a top hat looks on while his friend makes some adjustment to the
bottom of the furled sail. The women say
something to one another. Life is going on, but there is no drama, no
expectation of an outcome, no sense of getting anywhere. Rather than being a condition of boredom or
frustration, though, it feels exactly right.
It is tranquil but not tired. It
is immensely peaceful but not inert. In
a strange way, the picture is filled with a sense of delight in existence
expressed quietly.

Art is clearly capable of expressing such simple delight in
existence – as perhaps we have already seen in the case of Velazquez’
fish. But, as John Cottingham points
out, there is surely something more at issue here, which De Botton and
Armstrong’s discussion skirts around but does not quite bring out. Is what is conveyed by the painting merely a
sense of calm repose, or is there (as the phrases ‘tremendously meaningful’ and
‘exactly right’ perhaps hint at) a deeper tranquillity, a sense of being at one
with the rest of creation? If it is the
latter, then the feeling evoked is something akin to what has been called ‘ontological
rootedness’ a conviction that we are somehow secure ‘at home’ in the world or
in other words that God is with us

Of course this feeling that we are ‘at home’ in the world,
that God is with us, does not mean that we have some sort of immunity from
trouble as any sort of reading the Bible teaches us and as illustrated in the
many pictures of suffering, including that by Antonello, we looked at, at the
beginning of this sermon.

Nevertheless this painting perhaps provides some sort of
antidote to the loss of meaning depicted in Antonello’s picture. Here I think is a picture of resurrection and
of hope without being obviously so.